• fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Well you can’t give someone cash if there is no cash.

    Obviously nanna can transfer money to the kids.

    The real question is what is the difference?

    My kids have an account with an index fund. When I log in there’s a qr code you can scan which takes you to a payment gateway.

    • englislanguage@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      If the children are young enough, nanna can transfer money to some account the parents control. If the parents are fine, that’s fine. However, what if the parents are addicts (drugs, gambling, whatever)? Or what if they are so deep in debt that every cent on their accounts immediately gets turned to whoever the owe to? In that case the kid can’t even buy themselves lunch on their own.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think this is a great argument for the prevalence of cash?

        What about kids who’s nannas don’t give them money?

        Better to build a society that identifies kids as risk like this rather than prattling on about cash and hoping for the best.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well one happens while grandma is hugging the kid. It involves perceiving and interacting with a physical object, which uses parts of the brain that are hundreds of millions of years older than the parts you’re using when you see a notification on your phone.

      Also there’s the fact of the secrecy, which isn’t there when all transfers are recorded for possible analysis later.

      Quite a bit is different actually.